صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

man. We are not possessed of theology in its highest and most perfect shape. In this form it would embrace the relations of God not only to our world, but to all worlds -not only to the human race, but to all the races of his intelligent and moral creatures throughout the universe. It would comprehend his dealings with them all-and his plans and purposes in regard to them all. And it would exhibit God not only in his relations to all peopled space, but to all peopled time. It would go back into the eternity that is past, and tell of his dealings with whatever races of intelligent creatures may have preceded our own in the date of their creation; and it would reach forward into the eternity that is to come, and speak of the accomplishment of his high purposes in regard not only to us, but to all the other families of the universe-at a period later than the latest years of time when this world shall have passed away, and its brief history been forgotten. This would be theology in its most perfect form. But as we possess it, it has a far more limited range. Theology with us, is the science of God chiefly, nay, all but exclusively, in relation to mankind. It tells us what God has been, and is, and shall be to our world and our race-but it tells us little more. It gives us, indeed, a few glimpses of God's relations to the family of angels, but they are only glimpses; while in regard to the intelligent families which in all probability people the innumerable worlds of space, and which, if they exist, have doubtless all had their own religious history, their own dispensations of Divine love and wisdom, it does not afford us even so much as a glimpse -no, not even a hint to satisfy us whether they exist or not. And though some of its disclosures refer both to a past and a future eternity-though the plan of God's redeeming love, which is its greatest and most copious theme, does stretch its sublime arch from everlasting to everlasting, spanning not only all historic, but all prophetic time; yet that is a plan which, for aught we know, directly concerns our race alone-it is a plan which, for aught we know, was only one of many conceived in the eternity that is past, and which are to find their accomplishment in the eternity that is to come as many plans, perhaps, as there are separate worlds and families in the universe; but what does our theology disclose to us in regard to these? What do we know either of the primeval conception, or of the ultimate issues of these? Theology in its highest form may probably be the study of angels-perhaps it may be our own study in a higher and more advanced state of being. But as we have it now-as we study it now-it is theology only in one of its great chapters or departments; it is the science of God in special relation to man.

But though the tract which the light of our theology illuminates both in the religious history and the religious prospects of the universe is comparatively a small one, little more than a mere patch of territory compared with the infinitudes that surround it; yet, as if to compensate for this narrowness of range, the light which it sheds is stronger and more intense than any other that shines upon this lower sphere; it is a light from God himself; a light not only revealing God, but emanating from God; a light not falling upon him, but radiating from him. It is in the sun's own underived light that we see the glory of his countenance, and follow his chariot with our dazzled eyes in its brilliant career round the firmament. And "the Lord God is a Sun" he is self-revealing; it is "in his own light that we see light"-" the light of the

logist excavates from the bowels of the earth, only tend to magnify the more the grandeur of the science of God, by magnifying the power and the wisdom of God himself? Besides, is not the subject of theology not only more vast and immense, but also more enduring than the subject of the other sciences? Is not a time coming when the very world of which the secular sciences treat will be swept out of being, and of what account will they be then? They must perish in the catastrophe of that material universe which was their theme. But the God of the universe will survive still. These works of his hands shall perish, but He shall Himself endure; and the science of God, outliving the wreck of all the rest, shall be eternal and imperishable as God himself.

knowledge of his glory." The Christian the- | ology is the theology of the Word of God. It is drawn from the documents of Divine inspiration. It is derived from the imperishable words of holy men, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. There is indeed, an important distinction to be made, between the science of theology and the Word of God. The one is a system constructed by man out of Divine materials-the other is the collection of these materials themselves. The one may be disfigured by human errors, arising from the misinterpretation of God's Word, or the attempts of men to supply what that Word has withheld; but the other is Divine throughout, and has all the beauty and harmony of God's own truth. Still, in so far as theology is derived from the Scriptures-in so far as this science of God is Or do we estimate the importance of the constructed from the Word of God-it has several sciences by the measure of their bearall the authority of God himself, and its lighting upon man himself, and by their usefulness is an effulgence from him who is Light itself, to him, either in explaining his own wonderful and who covereth himself with light as with constitution, or in healing the evils that a garment. And it is well that its illumina-afflict him, or in contributing to his power tion of our sphere should be thus direct and and progress? And do we on this account strong. For though our world is small com- put more value upon such sciences as menpared with the rest of the universe, it is a tal philosophy, physiology, chemistry and great world, after all; and of all worlds it is mechanics, than upon such as lie more reto us the most interesting and important. mote from our own nature and our immeOur race may probably be but one, and that diate interests? Then reflect upon what has not the most numerous, among innumerable been already said regarding the bearing of races of moral and intelligent creatures, yet theology upon man's highest interests, his how vast are its numbers! how numerous its deepest wants, his grandest relations, and his generations! how noble the stamp it bears of noblest hopes; namely, his interests as a the Divine image! how grand its immortal religious and moral being, his relations to destiny! how precious-how infinitely pre- the great God of heaven, his wants as a cious its every soul! How important, then, creature designed by the very law of his that the clearest light should be shed upon creation to glorify God and enjoy him, his its religious and moral relations-its relations hopes for eternity. Theology alone resolves to that God who is above it, and that myste- the highest mysteries of our being-it alone rious eternity which is before it! How im- reveals from whom our nature sprung, for portant that on such subjects we should not what ends it was made, and to what destinies be left to our own random guesses and dark- it is reserved. This science alone carries the ling speculations; but that God himself should torch of discovery backward to our originspeak to us with his own voice-the voice at upward to our relationships with God, and once of authority and truth! How mighty forward to the eternal issues of our being. an advantage that in things relating to God This science alone heals the worst evils that we should walk in the light of God himself! afflict us--the evils of a corrupt and conscienceThese general remarks regarding the nature, stricken nature, at once alienated from God, and bearings, and sources of theology, will and dreading his displeasure--at once withbe sufficient to suggest to you its great and out God and without hope in the world. manifold superiority to all the other depart- And what science but this even so much as ments of human knowledge, and to justify the professes to point our claim which we have already made for it, as country, even an heavenly? Theology carries the greatest of all the sciences. There are at its girdle the keys of the kingdom of not many, indeed, among the philosophers heaven. It takes up the case of the human of the world who acknowledge the claim; family where all the other sciences abandon but nothing can be more easy than to vin- it-it begins where all the rest are content dicate and establish it. For whatever be to end; and, alone of them all, it kindles the criterion by which we estimate the rela- the light of hope in the darkness of the tive worth and interest of the different grave, and plants itself on the verge of this sciences, theology comes forth from the trial life, to grasp us with a friendly hand when with undiminished, nay, with ever accumu- we bid the world farewell, and to guide lating honour. For example, is the magnitude us to the realms of a world brighter and of the subject handled to be the criterion? better. And do we regard the sciences of astronomy I may well, then, gentlemen, congratulate and geology as more noble than such as you on your being called in the providence entomology or conchology, because the of God to engage in the study of a science former are conversant with the mighty orbs so far surpassing all others in greatness and of heaven and the vast strata of the earth, worth. And I trust these remarks regarding its character and pre-eminence, will lead you to cherish elevated thoughts of it and of its claims upon you. We wish you to feel that whatever zeal and devotedness you are capable of in study, and whatever powers of understanding and memory and investigation you can bring into exercise, the noble theme before you is worthy of them all-nay, demands them all at your hands, as the least tribute you can offer to its surpassing excellency.

while the latter undertake no higher office than to classify and describe the insects that flutter in the sunshine, and the shells that lie scattered upon the sea-beach? Then reflect how infinitely greater and vaster is the theme of theology, than that of even the astronomer, or the geologist! If God's works in these regions of discovery are so great, how inconceivably greater is God himself! And does not every new development in these departments of knowledge-does not every new reach of the astronomer's telescope into space, and every new secret that the geo

way to a better

You have heard of the zeal and martyr-like devotion of the votaries of the other sciences, and should your zeal and

devotion be less should they not be more in the cultivation of the science of God? Let such examples reprove you, as often as you are tempted to grow listless at your sacred task. Let the greatness of your employments animate you to surmount every difficulty which you may meet in your path, and let all your powers be drawn out to the utmost by the great thought, that it is God himself whom you are seeking now to know and understand, and that it is God, too, whom you propose to serve and glorify by the use of this knowledge in after years. In these remarks I have compared the claims of theology with those of the other sciences, and I have assigned to them as their due the highest place. But do not imagine that I intend, by so doing, to disparage the study of the latter, or to excuse a voluntary ignorance of them on your part. It will be required of you, as the students of this Institution, to devote a portion of your time to the study of them, if you have not yet made adequate progress in them; and a competent proficiency in some of them will be demanded of you, before you are admitted to the ministry of our Church. Still less will you imagine that I mean to give any countenance to the pernicious and unworthy idea, that theology and science are antagoniststhat they have conflicting interests, and are ranged on opposite sides of the world's intellectual arena. It is lamentable that ever any Christian writer on the one side, or any scientific one on the other, should have given expression or countenance to such an idea. How can they be antagonists if they are both true to their respective sources of information, if theology is true in her interpretation of Scripture, and if science is true in her interpretation of nature? How can Scripture, rightly interpreted, be ever at variance with nature, rightly interpreted, when Scripture is the Word of God, and nature is the work of God? Can God be at variance with himself? Can he say one thing in the works of his hands, and an opposite thing in the Word of his mouth? It is not nature and the Bible themselves that can ever contradict each other, but only men's interpretations or translations of both. The theologian may go wrong in his rendering of the Word, and the philosopher may go wrong in his rendering of nature, for both may be deficient either in the knowledge or the child-like spirit that is needful to make a good interpreter of either of these great documents. But the proper use to make of contradictory interpretations when they occur, is not to reject either the theology of the Bible or the science of nature on account of them, but to be impelled by them to look again into these interpretations and examine them anew. Let the divine, in such a case, review his process of exegesis, and see whether he has not made the Bible say what it does not really mean; and let the philosopher review his process of induction, and see if he has not made nature say what she does not really mean. It is wrong for the theologian to refuse in such a case to re-examine his interpretation, and to maintain that the philosopher must be in error because he contradicts the Bible, for after all it may not be the Bible he contradicts, but only a wrong translation or understanding of it, an interpretation long in use, it may be, and having the sanction of great names in theology, but not one whit the sounder notwithstanding. Theology has been compelled more than once before now to improve her interpretations of Scripture under the corrective light of advancing science, and she may be compelled to improve

them again. And, on the other hand, it is no less wrong for the philosopher in such a case to refuse to review his induction, and to maintain that the Bible must be in error because it contradicts nature; for after all it may not be nature it contradicts, but only a science of nature falsely so called; very plausible it may be, and very ingenious and charming in its theories, but not really Baconian, notwithstanding. Philosophy has often been compelled before now to retract her hasty conclusions against the Bible, and she may often have to retract her conclusions again. It is equally unjustifiable for the divine to refuse the assistance of science in interpreting the Bible, and for the philosopher to reject the assistance of Scripture in interpreting nature. Whatever is clear and certain in the one document should be used, in cases where its service is available, to explain what is dark and doubtful in the other document; and we may be equally confident that whatever is certain by the rules of exegesis in the Bible can never be contradicted by true science, and that whatever is certain by the rules of induction in nature, can never be contradicted by true divinity. It is infidelity in either case to imagine or to fear such a discrepancy; in the case of the theologian it is infidelity in the testimony of God's works, in that of the philosopher it is infidelity in the testimony of God's Word; for it is either to suppose that nature and Scripture are not both God's, or, allowing them to be so, that God can contradict himself and deceive his creatures in these two great volumes of his authorship.

In cases of seeming discrepancy, then, let not the divine and the philosopher declare open and exterminating war against each other's domaius, but let them hold parley-let them exchange thoughts and explanations with one another, let them test anew their respective interpretations-let each use the assistance which the other can give-and if a reconciliation is thus effected, if error is detected and acknowledged on either side, the cause both of theology and science will be mightily served. And what if the difference still remains? What if neither Scripture nor nature will give any different response to their interrogatories? then, say we, let them either wait till they can bring more learning to their aid, or let them appeal the question to the divines and philosophers who are to come after them, assured that a reconciliation will and must be effected in the end, for the God of truth can never be really, however apparently, at variance with himself.

Let this, gentlemen, be the spirit in which you contemplate the relation of your own to the other sciences; do not fear them, do not affect to despise them, do not pretend to regard them as either unsafe or useless to a theologian. But honour them and those who cultivate them, do your best to acquaint yourselves with them, make them all tributary to theology, and ancillary to your future ministry; use their light to explain and illustrate the Scriptures in so far as is consistent with the rules of sound grammatical criticism. And do not feel over anxious about present discrepancies, but, confident alike that the Bible is God's Word, and nature God's work, be sure that in the end all controversies between them must be for ever silenced, and their absolute harmony made evident to all.

The preceding observations are mainly intended to apply to theological science in general, but they may also serve to show the fundamental importance of that department of the science to which this lecture is designed to be introductory. I mean the department

of Biblical criticism, or as the German divines are wont to term it, exegetic theology. The meaning of this latter name is interpretative theology, or that branch of the science which concerns itself about the right rendering and interpreting of the Scriptures from their original tongues. We have seen that the light of theology is simply the concentrated light of the Divine Word, but how is that light to be elicited from the Word except by a right process of interpretation? We have also seen that the stability of theology, amidst the rapid advances of science and its incessant assaults, depends upon its being the truthful exponent of the sacred records. But how can it truthfully express their testimony without the exact and scientific rules of exegesis? It is plain, therefore, that the exegetic or interpretative department lies at the very foundation of the whole science, for it is this department which supplies the principles and rules of sound exposition-or a system of Bible-hermeneutics, and which teaches the right application of these principles and rules in actual exegesis. It is such scientific exegesis that brings forth from the Scriptures all the legitimate materials of systematic divinity, and whatever is not thus elicited is not of God; it has neither the pre-eminent excellence nor the enduring stability of Divine truth.

The principles and practice of Bible. interpretation, however, or, to use the scientific terms, Bible-hermeneutics and exegesis-do not constitute the whole of exegetic theology. It includes, also, the very extensive subject of diplomatic criticism, i.e., the criticism which settles the original and authentic text of the inspired writings, which aims to give us the sacred text as nearly as possible in the very state in which it came from the pens of the prophets, and evangelists, and apostles. For this purpose it collects, collates, and discriminates among the almost innumerable various readings which are found in the manuscripts and versions and patristic quotations of the Scriptures; and it decides, in each case of doubt, which of these readings may most certainly be believed to have been the "ipsissima verba" of the inspired writers. Now, can any investigation in theology be more fundamental than the determination of the autographic text of the Divine Word? It is plain that we must first assure ourselves on right critical principles, that we have a genuine and authentic text to interpret before we can proceed with any confidence to derive from it the materials of dogmatic divinity. If exegesis, then, is the immediate basis of systematic theology, the criticism of the text is no less the immediate basis of exegesis.

The fundamental character of exegetic theclogy will be still more evident, if we advert to the rest of the subjects which it embraces. It not only ascertains and interprets the pure text of the Old and New Testaments, but it also critically investigates and establishes the claim of these writings to be accounted the Word of God. It is this peculiar and pre-eminent claim which invests both the criticism and interpretation of the text with all their importance. If we did not receive these writings as the inspired oracles of God, we should have no adequate motive for determining with an accuracy so scrupulous and laborious the genuine reading of their autographs, and the exact signification of every clause and every word that enters into their composition. We must, therefore, investigate and settle the inspiration of the Scriptures before we embark upon the minute criticism and interpretation of their text; in

other words, before we bestow upon the Record a critical and hermeneutical treatment, far surpassing in labour and carefulness any that we ever think of bestowing upon other books, it is demanded by a right scientific arrangement that we should first show, on critical grounds, that the Record deserves and claims this tribute at our hands, because it is a Divine Record, the very Book of God. But we must carry our investigations even farther back than this. Before we can prove upon exact critical principles the inspiration of the Scriptures we must first establish their historic credibility and truth, viewed simply as the writings of human authors. Why do we believe that the apostles were inspired? Mainly because the Saviour is recorded in the Gospels to have promised them the Spirit of inspiration, and because it is also recorded in the book of Acts that that Spirit was given them on the day of Pentecost. But, in founding upon these records, we are plainly assuming that they are historically true. In arguing from the history which narrates these facts to the inspiration of the apostles, we are obviously proceeding on the ground that the history is veracious and trustworthy. That veracity, then, must first be established on independent evidence. I mean evidence altogether independent of the inspiration of the historians. It were to reason in a circle, first to argue the inspiration of the New Testament from its historical credibility, and then, when the proof of this credibility was demanded, to argue it from the book's inspiration. If the inspiration, then, is to be proved from the statements of the book, viewed simply as a credible history, its historic credibility must previously be established on distinct and independent evidence.

Nor is the historic truth of the Scriptures the only fact that is assumed, when we argue for their inspiration from their own statements: their genuineness or authenticity, and their integrity or uncorrupted preservation, are also assumed. We believe that the New Testament writings, for example, are inspired, not only on the ground of the Saviour's promise of the Spirit of inspiration to his apostles, and of the fulfilment of the promise soon after; but also, because we believe that these are the very writings of the apostles to whom the promise was made and fulfilled, and that they are still in substantially the same condition as that in which the apostles gave them to the Church. If it could be shown that the apostles were not the real authors of these compositions; or, that from interpolations and corruptions, the writings are no longer entitled to be considered theirs; or, if even any considerable doubt could reasonably be thrown upon both or either of these points, it is plain that the argument for their inspired authority, derived from Christ's promise, would be shaken or destroyed. True, the adversary would exclaim, Christ gave the promise of inspiration to his apostles, but these are not the genuine works of the apostles, or if they were so once, they have been so corrupted and vitiated that they are such no longer. The biblical critic, therefore, is obliged to go still farther back than the historic credibility and truth of the New Testament-he must settle beforehand its literary authenticity or genuineness, and its textual integrity or uncorruptness. In other words, he must shew that the book was certainly the composition of the evangelists and apostles whose names it bears, and that it is in all important respects and for all practical purposes, in precisely the same condition as when it proceeded from their pens. When he has done this, he is not only

in the best position for proving its historical | warfare,' there were a few great bibtruth, inasmuch as its apostolic authorship is lical critics in most of the countries the best guarantee for its fidelity and trust- of Europe, who silently pursued their worthiness, but he is then in the only useful labours, and were only involved in position, in which he can shew that it is controversy by the necessity of defending the not merely historically true but divinely works in which these labours issued. It was authorized not only the testimony of the age of Brian Walton, the editor of the upright men who were eye and ear wit- "London Polyglott," and of Edmund Castle, nesses of all that they record, but what is far his coadjutor, the author of the no less famous more, the testimony of holy men of God, "Lexicon Heptaglotton," and of Archbishop who spake and wrote as they were moved Usher, also a fellow-labourer of Walton, who by the Holy Ghost. collated for the Polyglott, sixteen additional MSS. of the Greek Testament, and otherwise aided in the production of that immortal work. It was the age of Father Simon and Capellus in France, of Buxtorf and Hottinger in Switzerland, of Solomon Glass in Germany, and of Leusden and Grotius in Holland,--all biblical scholars and critics of the greatest eminence, and whose works are still ornamental to our theological libraries, even though, for practical purposes and every day use, they have been superseded by later productions.

From these explanations it will be seen that the department of exegetic theology is not only truly fundamental, but exceedingly extensive. The foundations of theology cover a vast expanse of ground, like those of some magnificent temple, or of the Great Pyramid, and it is the function of the exegetic theologian to explore them all, and to demonstrate their solidity throughout their entire circuit. The majestic edifice of this sacred science, like the house which wisdom builded, rests upon seven pillars-the authenticity of the Scriptures, their integrity, their historic truth, their divine inspiration, the right criticism of their text, the right hermeneutics of the text, and the right exegesis of the text, and it is the exegetic theologian who hews out all these pillars, and rears them up in their places, and bids the inquirer admire their massive and enduring strength. The Scriptures themselves, the sacred documents of theology, are the grand and engrossing theme of the exegetic theologian, and manifold is the criticism which he brings to bear upon them; the criticism of evidence, to vindicate their Divine credentials, historical criticism, to investigate and trace their canonical history, diplomatic criticism, to determine their pure autographic text, philological criticism, to ascertain and bring out the grammatical and lexical peculiarities of their original languages; and interpretative criticism,-to elicit and set forth their genuine and inspired meaning.

The learning which the past has accumulated in all these departments is truly vast and prodigious. It would require the labour of many a life-time to explore and ransack its mighty magazines. The scholars who have amassed it have been some of the greatest that the world ever saw. Their lineage goes back to the erudite Fathers of the Alexandrian school to Clemens Alexandrinus, the master of Origen, and Origen himself, more learned than his master, who, in his famous Hexapla, gave the first example to the Church of diplomatic criticism. The line descends to Chrysostom, and Jerome, and Augustine, famous names among the commentators and critics of the ancient Greek and Latin Churches, and whose commentaries and expository homilies gave a tone to the Bible interpretation of Christendom for the next thousand years. The series emerges again with new and still higher honours at the period of the Reformation. The commentaries of Luther and Calvin revived the grammatical and only sure exegesis of the Word of God, and carried back the theology of Europe to the primitive purity and freshness of the days of the apostles; while the critical labours of Erasmus and Beza and Stephens gave the Greek Testament to the Churches in a shape which all the similar labours of subsequent critics have not materially changed. The succeeding century-the seventeenth, was, as you have recently heard from my learned colleague, the age of creeds and dogmatic systems and polemical debate. But it was not exclusively so. Amidst all the noise and confusion of theological and political

Nor was the eighteenth century, despite the indignation expressed so eloquently against it by my colleague in his introductory lecture, without its redeeming features. If it was not the age of great theologians in the ordinary sense of that term, it was pre-eminently the age of great Bible critics. If its productions in doctrinal theology lie deservedly forgotten among the dust of our libraries, let us not forget that its magnificent works in Scripture criticism take their rank among the greatest landmarks and memorials of the progress of that department. It is enough to remind you that this was the age in our own country of Mill, and Kennicott, and Holmes,--the three Oxford editors of the first great critical editions of the Greek Testament and the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint Version. It was the age also of Richard Bentley, the renowned defender of the misunderstood, but useful labours of these scholars, and of Nathaniel Lardner, the author of the "Credibility," and of Jeremiah Jones, a Dissenting minister, like Lardner, and the young author of a precocious work on the "New Testament Canon," and of Samuel Horsley, the redoubted antagonist of Priestley, and not more famous for the keen edge of the critical weapons which his great learning put into his hands, than for the manly vigour and unsparing energy with which he wielded them. The eighteenth century was the age also in Germany of a whole host of illustrious Bible scholars and critics; of Bengel and Wetstein and Matthaei and Griesbach, in the department of text criticism, and of Carpzov, Michaelis, Rambach, and Ernesti, in other branches of exegetic theology. Holland, also, in this century, had the famous Hebraist Albert Schultens, and France her Calmet, and Du Pin, and Houbigant. If that century, then, deservedly labours under the reproach of a vitiated theology and a blighted piety, it must at least be acknowledged to have had a pre-eminence above all its predecessors in the department of Bible criticism. And, indeed, it may easily be shown, that this kind of pre-eminence was precisely what might have been expected. The whole spirit of the age was critical, coldly, minutely, sceptically critical; and while this spirit in many gifted minds took the direction of Rationalism and irreligion, it impelled others, whom it did not succeed in driving beyond the territory of the faith, to examine at least more narrowly than ever the whole line of that territory's defences and bulwarks. If the age was marked by this genius beyond all that had gone before it, what more

natural than it should also have been preeminently the age of Bible criticism; what more natural than that a century which sought to shake the very foundations of theology and religion, should also have called forth an army of Bible scholars, who devoted their lives to that department of theology, which embraces the foundations of the whole edifice.

she was the first who gave to the Church | disparagement upon the critical labours of universal, critical editions, worthy of the their predecessors, instead of imitating them; name, of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint and in place of adding to the brilliancy of the version, and the Greek Testament. The light which sacred criticism has thrown names of Walton, Mill, Kennicott, and upon the Scriptures, we see them shutting Holmes, are identified with the greatest the casements of their cloisters against that works that have ever been achieved in this light, and enveloping themselves in the province; and the libraries of our country sombre, superstitious dimness-we cannot say possess some of the most precious documents light of medieval antiquity. Yes, it is But the past does not monopolize all the of sacred criticism; for instance, the famous melancholy to think that those very academic honours of sacred criticism. The present "Codex Alexandrinus" in the British Museum, halls, which once blazed with the clear sunage, rich with the spoils of all its predeces- the gift of an Oriental patriarch to a western light of manly learning and criticism, a light sors, proves itself not unworthy, to say the king; and the scarcely less famous "Codex which not only illuminated but invigorated least, of the splendid inheritance which Beza," or Cantabrigiensis, the one name indi- the understanding, and made it despise all the they have bequeathed to it. Look to Ger- cating its celebrated donor, the great critic weaknesses and anilities of superstition; that many. There Gesenius, the Coryphæus of his day, and the other, the place where in many of these very halls there is now only of Hebrew philologists, has not long it fitly lies deposited, I had almost said en- to be seen the glimmer of the smoky lamps rested from his labours, and his mantle has shrined, for many is the learned devotee that of superstitious lore, a lore which not only fallen, not unworthily, upon Ewald and has made his pilgrimage to pay to it the obfuscates, but weakens the understanding, Hupfeld, who still survive. Winer, too, the devotion of his reverential touch, and his ad- and reminds one of the garrulous doting of prince of New Testament philologists, still miring gaze. But our country, notwithstand-old age, which has no memory for what is lives to adorn his age and country. In ing its former illustrious names and its great recent, however important, but reserves all the department of exegesis, Tholuck, and existing opportunities, seems rather to repose its fondness for what took place long ago, Hengstenberg, and Lücke, have earned to them- upon the honours of the past, than to be ani- however silly or insignificant. But let us selves the glory of restoring the union, too mated by them to renewed and still greater hope that this senile superstition of learning long divorced in their country, between con- efforts. We have, it is true, the living names of will soon dote itself out. Already we see not summate scholarship and Evangelical piety. Lee of Cambridge, and Bloomfield, and Pye a few of these dingy lamps removed to more Scholz, of Bonn, is still living, who went forth Smith, and Henderson, and Davidson,-scho- appropriate cloisters, that never yet knew what upon his travels in search of New Testament lars who have kept themselves fully abreast of it was to have a better light; and let us hope MSS. and various readings, with as much the writings of Germany, and whose works are that the casements of Oriel, and Exeter, and enthusiasm as other travellers go in quest of rich with the spoils of Continental learning. Christ Church, will again be thrown open to the sublime and beautiful, and who added to But it is enough to show that we have let in the sunbeams. the apparatus of text criticism, the riches of fallen into the second rank of Biblical 331 MSS. collated by himself, in France, scholars to observe, that while these Switzerland, Italy, Palestine, and the Archi- authors quote the Germans continually, pelago. And quite a new school of diplomatic the Germans seldom or never quote critics has recently arisen in that land of prodi- them. We rather register and compile gious erudition, comprising a Lachmann, a the results of Continental researches, than Rinck, and a Tischendorf, who seem as though institute original and fundamental researches they were destined to eclipse all the honours of of our own. We should have looked, to Griesbach himself. Tischendorf is still a very the Church of England, especially, to have young man, and is at this moment embarked, averted from our country this sad and with the aid of coadjutors in Germany, humbling declension from the critical reFrance, Holland, and England, in the Hercu- nown of former days. It was she who sent lean and truly German undertaking of a re- forth to the field the men of might and newed examination of all the existing fame whom we have above referred to, and MSS., ancient versions, and patristic quota- while we gladly accord to her all the honour tions of the New Testament. Already he has of their immortal labours, we cannot but edited a fac-simile edition of the famous think that it might fairly have been expected "Codex Ephraimi," one of the most precious of her, that with colleges as numerous and relics of Christian antiquity; and which, till richly endowed as ever, and with libraries now, was believed to be almost entirely ever growing wealthier in all the treasures of illegible through the dimness of age. In learning, and with cloistered retirements for fact, as Moses Stuart remarks, it would seem her lore-loving sons as enviable as ever for to have come to this in Germany, "that the their seclusion and stillness,-a stillness only age of text criticism is only beginning." In broken by the tinkle of the College-bell, or America, the venerable professor just named the tread of the congenial feet of learned looks back from his honoured age upon visitors who are no intruders, it might have many trophies of scholarship and criticicm, been expected, I repeat, that, with all these which his hand has reared in a country undiminished facilities and appliances of destitute before of such learned monuments. learning and study, the Church of England Edward Robinson is still in the vigour of life, would still have been the foremost in the race and may yet be expected to add much to his of sacred scholarship, and not have allowed fame as a Scripture philologist and antiqua- herself to be outstripped by the theologians rian; and America still mourns over the too of the Continent, to whom she first set the early grave of Isaac Nordheimer, her adopted example of eminence in this best and most son-himself a Hebrew-and the most phi-precious of all erudition. But these expeclosophical and satisfactory of all the grammarians of the venerable language of his fathers. In fact, the American Church has at this moment a numerous band of enthusiastic Bible

scholars, who have drunk deep at the fountains of German learning, and yet have not learned to be ashamed of the theology of Jonathan Edwards, the indigenous and the boasted

product of their own soil.

Our own country alone disappoints the hopes of Bible scholars, and comes short of sustaining the honours of former days. She was early in entering the field of Scripture criticism, but she has been the first also to relinquish it. It is a source of no small satisfaction to the Christian Church of this land, that

tations have not been realized. Herbert
Marsh was the last of her great Bible critics,
and his celebrated and truly classic lectures
on the criticism and interpretation of the
Bible, which contain so lucid a summary of
all that had previously been achieved in these
departments, would almost seem to have
answered the purpose of a learned " Index
Rerum et Nominum," to be appended to,
and finally to close up, the folios of her
mighty erudition. And what do we behold
now? Alas! we see the most learned of her
sons, those who could best have sustained her
ancient honours, devoting all their learning
rather to the darkening than the illuminating
of the Word of God. We see them casting

Meanwhile, the light of Bible criticism, which was wont to radiate from Oxford and Cambridge, is breaking in upon our country from the quarter which these two great luminaries first enlightened. Germany is now discharging her obligations to England. Her Biblical scholars are repaying with ample usury the debt which she contracted a century and a-half ago. Their works, at first viewed by us with suspicion-and in too many cases it was a just suspicion-are rapidly rising into favour with British theologians. The Germans are more and more purging the rich ore of their learning from the base earth of Rationalism and Neology; and as the process of refining goes on, their productions are meeting with increasing regard and admiration among us. At this moment there are two rival schemes before the public-the one originated by a Society like the Wodrow or the Parker, and the other by a Scottish publisher, who has deserved well of British divines for what he has already done in the same department, for supplying translations of the best German works in the various branches of scientific theology, at a rate of cheapness which will make these masterpieces accessible to the least wealthy scholars. It is a happy rivalry, and there is ample room for it. At least we are sure there is ample scope for it in the vast magazines of Continental theology. And we trust it will soon appear that there is also scope enough for it in the reviving taste and demand among our divines and theological students for this order of literature.

Gentlemen, you have now some idea of the authorship which belongs to the department of exegetic theology; of the prodigious variety and bulkiness of the stores of learning which have accumulated and are still accumulating over the whole extent of its domain. The most that all but a few can hope to reach is, to master the general results of this immense erudition. Aim to master at least as much as this. Strive at the very least to enrich yourselves with the most precious parts of this accumulated scholarship. Grasp at the golden ore which others have had the labour of excavating and sending up to the surface. We would have you,

indeed, to entertain a still higher ambition-occupying the pulpits of our churches by his the ambition of being, one day, original investigators and discoverers yourselves. But if you may not hope to attain to that distinction, determine, at the very least, to be intelligent, to be fully intelligent of what others have achieved.

DISRUPTION IN THE CANTON DE VAUD.

THE following is the Act of Demission published by the Pastors who have left the Established Vaudois Church :

TO THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED NATIONAL

CHURCH OF THE CANTON DE VAUD. Well-beloved Brethren, Members of our Parishes, and Faithful of that Church, Old men to whom God has given the wisdom of age; fathers and mothers whose children we have taught; young people who are the strength of our churches; all you whose servants we are; for the love of Christ, hear and consider the solemn resolution to which a great number of your pastors have come before God.

For many months we have appealed to the Councils of the Nation, to lift their voice against the encroachments, always more numerous and more threatening, of the civil authority upon the privileges of our Church, and the liberty of the ministry. Our words have been disregarded. The Classes, which are the Councils of the Church, have, in the judgments of 22d and 23d October, spoken with an unanimity which ought to have had great weight. Their voice has not been listened to, and the Council of State has, notwithstanding, visited with punishment the men who, supported by the law, ventured to defend the rights of the Church and of the ministry.

One great duty it remains for us to discharge, to save the Church of our fathers; and this day, Wednesday, 12th November, 1845, one hundred and fifty-three pastors and ministers, listening only to the voice of our conscience, the present difficulties, and the peril of our religious institutions, have, with anguish of heart, but on our knees before God, adopted the following Resolutions ad

dressed to the Council of State :

To the Council of State. Monsieur le President, et Messieurs les Membres du Conseil d'Etat, By the double judgment which you pronounced on 3d November, 1845, you, by your sole authority, completely modified the Christian ministry in the National Church.

agents, to read his proclamations there at the time of Divine service-proclamations which may expound other doctrines or other interests than religious doctrines and spiritual interests.

We, the pastors and ministers subscribing we, the guardians of public worship and religion-declare to you, Gentlemen, that we ought not and will not become instruments of establishing such encroachments.

In the same judgment of the 3d November you condemned and punished three pastors for having prayed to God, and preached the Gospel, in the Oratoire of Lausanne, even for having been only present at worship in that Oratoire.

You condemned them, although they had broken no law.

You condemned them in the face of the law of God, which absolves them.

You condemned them in contempt of the unanimous sentence of the Classes of Lausanne, which acquitted them.

By that judgment you therefore declared, That the laws no longer protect the ministry, since you assign to your "circularies" the force of law.

That the law of God can no longer be the supreme rule of the Christian ministry in the National Church.

That the pastors can no longer exercise their ministry by preaching, save at the hours and in places fixed by the civil authority, and that the pastor thus loses, if the civil authority should refuse it to him, the right of meeting with his parishioners for prayer and exposition of the Word.

That, consequently, the civil authority claims the right of limiting, at its pleasure, the ministrations of the pastors.

We, the pastors and ministers subscribed -we who have received that ministry from God, and must render account of it to God declare to you, Gentlemen, that we ought not and will not wear those fetters.

Consequently, Gentlemen, and seeing the arbitrary modifications which you have brought about in the Christian ministry within the National Church, we declare to you that we now resign into your hands, as from the 15th of December next, the status and the official ecclesiastical functions which we exercise in the National Church. Until the 15th of December those amongst us who are not suspended shall continue the exercise of our functions. We delay thus long only that our parishes may not be left in suffering, and the public authority in difficulty.

By this demission, and for the reasons In that judgment you condemned and which we have laid before you, Gentlemen, punished forty-two pastors and ministers, for we protest to you, and we shall protest loudly having refused to read from the pulpit the to the country, that we yield to the force of proclamation, truly political, of the 29th July. circumstances, and that it is your arbitrary You condemned them in the face of the measures which exclude us from the active express texts of the law of 1832, which re-service of our Church in connexion with the quired them to give that refusal.

You condemned them in contempt of the sentence of acquittal of the four Classes.

By that judgment you therefore declared, That, contrary to the constitution, which says, "the law regulates the relation between the Church and the State," the Church, in place of being united to the State, is now subordinated to the State; in place of being governed by the laws, is now governed by the arbitrary will of the Council of State. That the pastors have no longer the benefit

[blocks in formation]

State.

We declare that no political interests nor any personal views have caused us to take

this step.

We declare at the same time to you, Gentlemen, and we shall declare it before the country, in order that no one may mistake our intentions, that we are ready to devote ourselves anew to the service of the National Church, but that we shall never take upon us official functions until, by sufficient guarantees, we shall be secured against such measures as those by which you have assailed the rights and liberties of our National Church, and of the Christian ministry in that Church. Receive, Gentlemen, the assurance of our

respect.

Lausanne, 12th Nov. 1845.

Christians, Members of our beloved parishes.-Three hundred years have elapsed since Almighty God awakened, by the mouth of the Reformers, the piety of our honoured ancestors, and our beloved Church was brought out by the hand of God, glorious, pure, and free.

For three hundred years the Lord has served in it the same faith.

pre

For three hundred years fathers and children have found salvation within the pale of this Church, and in the faith which it inculcates in one only Head and Lord-one only Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

If in past ages magistrates have been instruments in the hand of God for building up and preserving our National Church, they are not its masters-honoured of God by being called to protect that great and holy institution, they have no right to assume it as theirs to rule over. It is and ought to be the Church of Jesus Christ, a portion of that great Church which the Lord Jesus purchased and purified by his blood, not that it might be the glory and the strength of kings and magistrates, but that it might be to his own glory, and a sure refuge for poor sinners.

Accordingly, when this day, we, the servants of that Church, the natural defenders of its faith and liberties, the guardians of its worship, and the appointed watchmen over the house of God, see, by a series of illegal measures, our National Church smitten in that which constitutes its glory and its life,its rights trampled on-its ministers threatened with slavery, after having, to no purpose, in a recent circular, sounded the note of alarm, are now compelled to adopt the strong resolution of breaking off our connexion with the State, till the oppression shall cease, and a guarantee for its liberties be given to the Church.

We have no need to justify this act before you, beloved parishioners; the measures by which the sanctity of worship and the liberty of the ministry have been invaded, justify it before you and before all Christian Churches. Neither the solemnity of our circumstances, the fear of being misunderstood, nor personal sacrifices, have caused us to hesitate. We dared not subordinate the great interests of the Church and of religion to human considerations, or to accusations which we know cannot harm us. We walk by faith-the future is not ours, it is in the hands of the Almighty and most gracious God.

Beloved brethren, we call you to join us in saving the Church of the Reformation in our land, the National Church, the Church of our fathers. The moment it ceases to be the Church of the Government, it becomes for ever, and more truly, the Church of the nation.

Whatever the diversity of political opinions among you who still love the National Church, who desire the blessing of Christian worship and religious instruction for your children, who fear the spread of sects, let us all, you parishioners, and us pastors, rally with fresh zeal and unwavering faith around the head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

May the spirit of devotedness to God, and renunciation of our private interests, animate us all at this solemn hour!

chil

As for us, your pastors, we shall continue in your service, to marry, baptize your dren, teach your youth, console your sick and dying, instruct you in the holy Scriptures. We shall redouble our zeal that our National Church may not suffer, for we bear that Church on our hearts, and we wish to live and die in the faith which it professes.

« السابقةمتابعة »